Boris Johnson's Law-Breaking: What Went Wrong?

Former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been accused of breaking the law on several occasions. One of the most notable instances was during the Brexit negotiations, when Johnson's government proposed changes to the Brexit deal that would have broken international law, sparking a huge backlash. Johnson has also been accused of unlawfully suspending Parliament for five weeks in 2019, leading to a court case at the UK Supreme Court. In addition, Johnson was issued a fixed penalty notice for attending a birthday party in his honour in Downing Street in June 2020, when indoor socialising was banned due to the coronavirus pandemic. While Johnson claimed that he did not intentionally break the law and therefore did not breach the Ministerial Code, his actions have raised questions about his commitment to upholding the law.

Johnson's Brexit deal broke international law

In September 2020, the UK government, led by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, announced that it would override parts of the Brexit divorce agreement, admitting that this would breach international law. The controversial UK Internal Market Bill gives ministers powers to "disapply" parts of the rules agreed in the Northern Ireland Protocol, which is part of the binding Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU.

The Northern Ireland Protocol was designed to prevent a hard land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Under the protocol, Northern Ireland remains in the EU's single market for goods, unlike the rest of the UK. This means that companies moving goods from Northern Ireland to Great Britain would have to fill out export declaration forms. Johnson's bill would give ministers the power to overrule or ignore that part of EU customs law.

Another key aspect of the Withdrawal Agreement is the commitment that the UK will follow EU rules on state aid for goods related to Northern Ireland. Once again, Johnson's bill would allow ministers to ignore this rule.

The UK government has argued that these measures are an "insurance policy" or a "legal safety net" to protect the free flow of goods and services between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. They claim that the EU is threatening to impose a "full-scale trade border" between Britain and Northern Ireland and that their actions are necessary to protect the economic and territorial integrity of the UK.

However, Johnson's plans to break international law over Brexit have sparked widespread criticism and backlash. Former prime ministers and MPs across the political spectrum have condemned the move, with some threatening to vote against the bill. There has also been concern about the breakdown in relations between Downing Street and the civil service, with the resignation of Jonathan Jones, the head of the government's legal department, in protest against the government's actions.

Senior former diplomatic and security officials have warned that the government's decision to break international law could have ""catastrophic" consequences for Britain's reputation and its relations with allies, while empowering adversaries. They argue that the UK's actions undermine its credibility and position in the international rules-based order.

Johnson's Internal Market Bill broke international law

The UK Internal Market Bill, introduced by Boris Johnson, has been deemed controversial as it gives ministers powers to "disapply" parts of the rules agreed upon in the Brexit divorce agreement. This includes overriding sections of the Northern Ireland Protocol, which was set in place to prevent a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

The Internal Market Bill allows ministers to change the interpretation of the agreement on customs declarations and state aid in relation to Northern Ireland. This would enable ministers to “dis-apply” the EU legal concept of “direct effect”, which enforces EU law.

The Bill breaches Article 4 of the Withdrawal Agreement, which states that the UK must use primary legislation to give full effect to the Withdrawal Agreement in domestic law. By introducing the Internal Market Bill, the UK government is going back on its previous agreement with the EU, causing anger among MPs and European politicians.

Raphael Hogarth, a research associate at the Institute for Government, explained that the Internal Market Bill breaks the agreement of Article 4 in relation to the Northern Ireland Protocol. The Bill gives ministers the power to override the agreement, despite the UK initially committing to implementing all aspects of the Brexit deal through its domestic legislation.

Hogarth further stated that the Bill creates powers for ministers to make regulations in two key areas: exit declarations and state aid. This is considered a breach as it attempts to override previous legislation, and while the UK government claims it is a "specific and limited" breach, the use of these powers could lead to further and more extensive breaches of the Withdrawal Agreement.

The introduction of the Internal Market Bill has sparked concerns about the UK's commitment to upholding international law and its potential impact on future negotiations. It also raises questions about the government's motives, with some arguing that it is a power move by the Prime Minister during the late stages of Brexit negotiations.

If the UK proceeds with this plan, the EU could take action through a series of talks or by initiating a process of international arbitration or legal action, including taking the UK to the European Court of Justice.

Johnson's lockdown-breaking birthday party

On 19 June 2020, Boris Johnson broke public health laws he helped create by having a birthday party in the cabinet room of 10 Downing Street. The party was organised by his then-wife, Carrie Johnson, and was attended by up to 30 people, including Chancellor Rishi Sunak and interior designer Lulu Lytle. At the time, indoor social gatherings were banned, and only groups of up to six people were allowed outdoors.

The party lasted for around 20 to 30 minutes and involved snacks from M&S. Johnson claimed he was only there for around 10 minutes, and that he did not realise he was breaking the rules. However, the Metropolitan Police launched an investigation into the incident and issued Johnson with a fixed penalty notice for breaching lockdown rules.

The scandal, known as "Partygate", caused significant political turmoil for Johnson, who was already facing criticism for other lockdown-breaking parties in Downing Street. Johnson's insistence that he did not knowingly break the rules led to an investigation by the Privileges Committee, which concluded that Johnson had deliberately misled Parliament.

Johnson faced increasing pressure to resign as a result of Partygate, and eventually stepped down as Prime Minister in July 2022. The full extent of Johnson's lockdown-breaking activities was revealed in May 2022, when Sue Gray published a report containing damning photos of the birthday party.

Johnson's adviser, Dominic Cummings, broke lockdown rules

On March 23, 2020, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced a nationwide lockdown, stating that people must stay at home and only leave the house for essential reasons such as shopping for basic necessities, exercise, work, or medical needs. He also emphasised that people should refrain from meeting family members who do not live with them.

However, Johnson's chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, allegedly broke these lockdown rules by travelling 260 miles from his London home to his family home in Durham. This decision sparked outrage among the public, with nearly 75% of voters believing that Cummings violated the lockdown restrictions.

Cummings claimed that he made the journey to ensure his young son could be properly cared for, as both he and his wife were experiencing COVID-19 symptoms. However, this explanation was met with scepticism by many. Furthermore, reports emerged that Cummings had also been spotted in Barnard Castle, with Cummings claiming that this trip was to test his eyesight after recovering from the virus.

While the police did not deem Cummings' trip to Durham as a breach of the law, it was undoubtedly a violation of the lockdown guidelines that the majority of the country was diligently following. The incident caused a backlash and led to calls for Cummings' resignation, with nearly 50 Conservative MPs joining these calls.

The case of Dominic Cummings highlights the public's expectation for those in power to adhere to the same rules that they impose on the general population. It also underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in government, especially during a public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Johnson prorogued parliament

On 28 August 2019, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson advised Queen Elizabeth II to prorogue parliament, which she subsequently ordered. The prorogation was to last from 9 or 12 September 2019 until 14 October 2019, a period of five weeks. This was highly unusual, as prorogation typically lasts less than a week.

The move was seen by many opposition politicians and political commentators as a controversial and unconstitutional attempt by the prime minister to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of the government's Brexit plans in the final weeks leading up to Brexit. Johnson and his government defended the prorogation of parliament as a routine political process that ordinarily follows the selection of a new prime minister and would allow the government to refocus on a legislative agenda.

The matter was taken to the High Court of Justice and the Outer House of the Court of Session (the English and Scottish civil courts of first instance), which ruled that the matter was not subject to judicial review as it was a political decision. However, an appeal to the Inner House of the Court of Session (Scotland's supreme civil court) overturned the verdict and ruled the advice was justiciable and unlawful. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which ruled unanimously that the prorogation was both justiciable and unlawful, and therefore null and of no effect.

The court found that Johnson's advice to the Queen to prorogue parliament was outside the powers of the prime minister and that it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. The court also found that the government had not provided a justification for the intended prorogation, its length, or its effect on the requirement for parliamentary scrutiny of any withdrawal agreement.

As a result of the Supreme Court ruling, the prorogation was deemed void, and parliament resumed on 25 September 2019. Johnson faced calls to resign from opposition leaders, including Jeremy Corbyn, Nicola Sturgeon, Jo Swinson, and Nigel Farage. However, Johnson refused to resign and reiterated his call for an early general election.

Frequently asked questions